say simply, more power to all of you. thank you very much. ..

[cheers and applause] thank you so much. good afternoon, everybody. [cheers and applause] great to be back in place. it is great to be back here at cuyahoga community college. [cheers and applause] partook first of all think angela for her introduction and sharing her story. i know her daughter is very proud of her. to give her a big round of applause. [cheers and applause] i want to thank your president, dr. jerry-sue thornton. [cheers and applause]

and i want to thank the members of congress who made the trip today. representative marcia fudge. [cheers and applause] representative betty sutton and representative marcy betty sutt. those of you who they seek to set out -- [cheers and applause] so -- [cheers and applause] thank you. four more years, four more years a mac [cheers and applause] >> so ohio, this election will

take many twists and many turns. votes will go up and those will go down. there will be no shortage of gas and controversies that keep both campaigns think you need to for something to read about. you may have heard it recently made my own unique contribution to that process. [laughter] it wasn't the first time, you won't be the last. [laughter] and the coming weeks, governor von and i will spend time debating the records center experience, as we should. but though we will have many differences over the course of this campaign, there is one place where i stand and complete agreement with my opponent: this election is better economic future.

[cheers and applause] yes, foreign policy matters. social issues matter. but more than any analysis, and this election a choice between two fundamentally different visions of how to create strong, sustained growth, how to pay down our long-term dad, and most of all, how to generate good middle-class jobs so people can have confidence that if they work hard, they can get ahead. [applause] now, does it sound abstract debate. this is not another trivia washing an argument. i have said that this is the defining issue of our time and i mean it. i have said this is in make or

break moment for america's middle class and i believe it. the decisions they make in the next few years on everything from debt, taxes to aji and education will have an enormous impact on this country and on the contrary we pass on to our children. now, these challenges are not new. we have been wrestling with these issues for a long time. the problems we're facing right now have been more than a decade in the making. and what is holding us back is not a lack of big ideas. it is in a matter of finding the right technical solution. both parties have laid out their policies on the table for all to see. what is holding us back is a stalemate in washington between two fundamentally different

views of which direction america should take. in this election is your chance to break that stalemate. [laughter] that stake is not simply a choice between two candidates who are two political parties, but between two paths for our country. and while very many things to discuss in this campaign, nothing is more important than an honest debate about where these two paths with you guys. not that debate starts with an understanding of where we are and how we got it. [applause] long before the economic crisis of 2008, the basic bargain at the heart of this kind she had

begun to erode. for more than a decade, it had become harder to find a job that paid the bills. harder to save, harder to retire. harder to keep up with rising cost of gas and health care and college tuition. you know that. you lift it. [applause] during that decade, there was a specific due in washington about how to meet this challenge. we were told that huge tax cuts, especially for the wealthiest americans would lead to faster job growth. we were told that fewer regulations, especially for big financial institutions and corporations would bring about widespread prosperity. we were told that it is okay to

put two wars on the nation's credit card, but tax cuts put create enough growth to pay for themselves. that is what we were told. so how does economic theory work out? >> terrible! [laughter] >> for the wealthiest americans are worked out pretty well. over the last few decades, the income the top 1% grew by more than 275%. to an average of $1.3 million a year. big financial institutions, corporations of their profits soar. but prosperity never trickled down to the middle class. but 2001 to 2008, with the slowest job growth and half a century. the typical family saw their incomes fall.

the failure to pay for the tax cuts in the wars took us from record surpluses under president bill clinton to record deficits and left us unprepared to deal with the retirement of an aging population is facing a greater strain on programs like medicare and social security. without strong enough regulations, and families were enticed and sometimes tricked into buying homes they couldn't afford. [applause] banks and investors for that package and and sell risky mortgages. huge red clay sped through with other peoples money on the line. and too many from wall street to washington simply looked the other way. for a while, credit cards and home equity loans paid for over the reality of this new economy, people borrowed money to keep out. but the growth to face during this time.

turned out to be a house of cards. and in the fall of 2008, it all came tumbling down with the financial crisis that longed the world and the worst economic crisis since the great depression. here in america, families both declined at a rate nearly seven times faster than when the market crashed in 1929. millions of homes were foreclosed. our deficits soared to 9 million of our citizens lost their jobs. 9 million. hard-working americans have met their responsibilities, but were forced to pay for the irresponsibility of others. in other words, this was not your normal recession. throughout history, it is typically taken countries at just 10 years to recover from financial crises of this

magnitude. today the economy is in many european countries still are growing in their unemployment rates average is 11%. but here in the united states, americans showed their credit and showed their determination. we have it fast. our economy started growing again six months after he took office and it has continued to grow for the last three years. [cheers and applause] our businesses have gone back to basics, created over 4 million jobs in the last 27 months. [cheers and applause] more private-sector jobs than were created during the entire seven years before this crisis. [cheers and applause]

and a little over two years. manufacturers have started investing in america again, including right here in ohio. and across america, we have seen them create almost 500,000 jobs in the last 27 months, the strongest period of manufacturing job growth since 1995. [applause] him when my opponents and others are arguing that we should let detroit go bankrupt, we made a pact on american workers and the ingenuity of american companies and today our auto industry is back on top of the world. [cheers and applause]

but let's be clear. matt olmert rejigging out of the hole that is 9 million jobs steve, we are taking out from an entire decade, were 6 million manufacturing jobs left our shores. her costs rose, but incomes and wages didn't. and where the middle class fell further and further behind. so recovering from the crisis of 2008 has always been the first and most urgent order of business, but it is not enough. our economy won't be truly healthy until we reverse that much longer and profound erosion of middle class jobs that middle-class incomes. so the debate in this election is not about whether or not we need to grow faster or whether we need to create more jobs or

whether we need to pay down our debt. of course the economy is and where it to be. of course we have a lot more work to do. everybody knows that. the debate in this election is how we grow faster and how we create more jobs and how we pay down our debt. that is the question facing the american motives. [applause] nns election, you have two very different visions to choose from. >> governor romney and his allies in congress believe deeply in the theory that we tried during the last decade. the theory that the best way to

grow this economy is from the top down. and so, they maintain that if we eliminate most regulations, we cut taxes by trillions of dollars, if we strip down government, national security and a few other basic functions, then the power businesses to create jobs and prosperity will be unleashed and that will automatically benefit us all. that is what they believe. this is their economic plan. it has been in place before congress. governor romney has given speeches about it and it is on his website. so if they win the election, and their agenda will be simple and straightforward. they've spelled it out. they promised to roll back regulations on banks, polluters, insurance companies and oil companies. they will roll back regulations designed to protect consumers and workers.

they promise to not only keep all of the bush tax cuts in place, that add another $5 trillion in tax cuts on top of that. now, an independent study says that about 70% of this new $5 trillion tax cut would go to folks making over $200,000 a year. and folks making over a million dollars a year would get an average tax cut of about 25%. now, this is not my opinion. this is not political spin. this is precisely what they have proposed. now, your next question may be, how do you spend $5 trillion on a tax cut and still bring down the deficit?

well, they tell us they will start by cutting nearly a trillion dollars from the part of our budget that includes everything from education and job training to medical research and clean energy. [booing] now, i want to be very fair here. i want to be clear. they haven't specified exactly you were the knife would fall. but here are some what would happen if that cut a proposed was spread evenly across the budget. 10 million college students would lose an average of the thousand dollars each on financial aid. 200,000 children would lose the chance to get an early education that their program. the pre-1600 fewer medical research grants for things like alzheimer's and other inmates. 4000 fewer scientific research

grants, eliminating support for 48,000 researchers, students and teachers. now again, they have not testified which of these cuts they choose from. but if they want make smaller cuts to areas like science or medical research, then they'd have to cut things like financial aid for education even further. but either way, the cuts to this part of the budget would be deeper than anything we've ever seen in modern times. not only does it play in the lemony health insurance for 32 million americans by concluding the affordable care act [booing] in according to the kaiser foundation it would also take away coverage from another 19 million americans who rely on medicaid, and put millions of nursing home patients and families with children with autism and other disabilities.

and they propose turning medicare into a voucher program, which will shift more costs to seniors and eventually end the program as we know it. but it doesn't stop there. even if you make all the cuts that they propose, but not still doesn't allow you to pay for a new $5 trillion tax cut and bring down the deficit at the same time. so mr. romney and his allies have told us we can get the rest of the wayfarer by reforming reforming the tax code and taking away certain tax breaks and the deduction that again they haven't specified. they haven't named them, but they said they can do it. but here's the problem. the only tax breaks and deduction that gets you anywhere close to $5 trillion are those that help in the class families afford health care and college and retirement and homeownership . without those tax benefits, tens

of millions of middle-class families will end up paying higher taxes. many of you would end up paying higher taxes to pay for this other tax cut. and keep in mind that all of this is just to pay for their new $5 trillion tax cut. if you want to close the deficit left by the bush tax cuts, we'd have to make deeper cuts or raise middle-class taxes even more. this is not spin. this is not my opinion. these are facts. this is what they are presenting is their plan. this is their vision. there is nothing new. just what bill clinton has called the ideas they've tried before except on steroids. [laughter] [applause]

now, i understand that's got a lot of supporters here, but i want to speak to everyone who was watching it may not be a supporter, maybe on the side, thinking about voting the other way. if you agree with the approach you just described, if you want to get the policies of the last decade and others try, then you should vote for mr. romney. [booing] like i said, i know i've got supporters here. now, no, you should vote for his allies in congress, you should take them at their word and they will take america down in mr. romney is qualified to deliver on that plan. [laughter] now, he is. [applause] i am giving you a presentation of what he is proposing. i'm looking forward to the press following a period and making

sure that -- [applause] you know i'm not exaggerating. i believe their approach is wrong. and i'm not alone. i have not seen a single independent analyses that says my opponent's economic plan would actually reduce the deficit. not one. even analysts who may agree with ours is economic theory don't believe that his plan would create more jobs in the short term. they now claim his plan would help folks looking for work right now. in fact, just the other week one economist for moody's said the following about mr. romney's plan. and i'm quoting here. all of these policies would do more harm in the short term.

if we implemented all of these policies, it would push us deeper into recession and make the recovery slower. that is not my spin. that is not my opinion. that is what independent economic analysis says. as for the long-term, remember that economic vision of mr. romney and its allies in congress was tested just a few years ago. we tried this. their policies did not grow the economy. they did not grow the middle class. they did not reduce our debt. why would we think that they would work better this time? [applause] we can afford to jeopardize the future by feeding the mistakes of the past. not when there's so much at

stake. i've got a different vision for america. [applause] i believe you can get on the debt with a strong economy and i believe you can't have a strong and growing economy without a strong and growing middle class. [applause] an economy built not by the top down but by a growing middle class. and folks not yet in the middle class. you see, we'll never be a little computer some countries when it comes to staying, workers lowers wages or letting countries to more polluting. that is a rate for the bottom that we should not want to win. those countries don't have a strong middle class.

they don't have our standard of living. [applause] the race i want us to win, the race i know we can win is the race to the top. i see an america with the best educated, best trained workers in the world, an america with a commitment to research and development that is second to none, especially high-tech manufacturing with business is the fastest most reliable transportation and communication system that anywhere on mary's. i see a future where we pay down our debt and said in a way that is balanced. not by placing the entire burden on middle-class and poor but by cutting out programs that can afford and asking the wealthiest americans to contribute their fair share. [applause]

that's my vision for america. education, energy, innovation, infrastructure and a tax code focused on american job creation and balance deficit reduction. [applause] this is the vision behind a jobs plan i sat congress back in september. a bill filled with bipartisan ideas but according to independent economists would create up to 1 million additional jobs that passed today. this is a vision behind the deficit plan i sent to congress back in september. a detailed proposal that would reduce our deficit by $4 trillion through shared sacrifice and shared responsibility. this is the vision i intend to pursue him a second term as president because i believe --

[cheers and applause] because i believe if we do these things, if we do these things more companies will start here and stay here and how you're here and more americans will be will to find jobs that support a middle-class lifestyle. understand this pie was to hear for my opponents, this has never been a vision about how government creates jobs or has the answers to all our problems. over the last three years i've cut taxes for the typical

working family by $3600. [applause] has cut taxes for small businesses 18 times. i have approved fewer regulations than the first three years of my president even my republican president did hayes and i'm implementing over 500 firms to this regulations that were causing too much for no reason. i ask congress for the authority to be organizing federal government that was built for the last century. i want to make it work for the 21st century. [applause] a federal government that is leaner and more efficient and more responsive to the american people. i have signed a law to cut spending and reduce the deficit by $2 trillion. current deficit plan would strengthen medicare and medicaid

for the long haul by slowing the growth of health care costs, not shifting them to seniors and plans. [applause] and my plan would reduce our yearly domestic spending to its lowest level of the economy and nearly 60 years. so no, i don't believe the government is the answer to our problems. i don't believe that the regulation is smart work of every tax dollar is spent wisely. i don't believe that we should be in the business of helping people who refuse to help themselves. [applause] but i do share the belief of our first republican president for my home state, abraham lincoln. but through government we should do together when we cannot do as well for ourselves.

that is how we built this country. together. we constructed railroads and highways, the hoover dam and the golden gate bridge. we did those things together. we send my grandfathers generation to college on the g.i. bill together. we instituted a minimum wage in roles that people's pain deposit together. together we touched the surface of the man, unlock the mystery of the item, connected the world tour in science and imagination. we haven't done these things as democrats or republicans. we've done them as americans. [applause] as much as we must associate medicare with lyndon johnson,

whose republican, lincoln who launched the transcontinental railroad, the, land grant colleges. it was the republican eisenhower who launched the interstate highway system in a new era of scientific research. it was nixon who created the environmental protection agency. reagan who worked with democrats to save social security by the way raise taxes to help pay down and exploding deficit. [applause] yes, there've been fierce arguments throughout our history between both parties about the exact size and role of government, some honest disagreements. but in the decades after world war ii, there is a general consensus that the market couldn't solve all of our problems on its own, that we

needed certain investments to give hard-working american skills they needed to get a good job and launch printer as platforms they needed to create good jobs and we needed consumer protections that make american products they and american markets found. in the last century this consensus, this shared vision much of the strongest economic growth in the largest middle class the world has ever known. it led to a shared prosperity. it is this vision that has guided all my economic policies during their first term as president, whether in the design of the health care love relies on private insurance or an approach to bolster reform that encourages financial innovation but guards against reckless risk-taking. it is this vision that democrats and republicans used to share that mr. brown in the current

republican congress have rechecked it. in favor of a no holds barred government is the enemy, market is everything approach. it is this shared vision i intend to carry forward in this century as president because of the vision that has worked for the american middle class and everybody striving to get into the middle-class. [cheers and applause] let me be for specific. think about it. in an age where we know good jobs depend on high skills, now is not the time to scale back our commitment to education. [cheers and applause] now is the time to move forward and make sure we have the best educated, best trained workers in the world.

my plan for education doesn't just rely more money for more dictates from washington. we are challenging every state and school district took him up at the their own innovative plans to raise an achievement and they are doing just that. i want to give schools more flexibility so they don't have to teach the test and so they can or teachers just don't learn. but look, if we want our country to be a magnet for middle-class jobs in the 21st century, we have to invest more in education and training. i want to recruit an army of new teachers and pay teachers better and train more of them in areas like math and science. i have a plan to give 2 million more americans the chance to go to community colleges just like this one somewhere the skills

businesses are looking for right now. i do plan to make it easier for people to afford higher education essential in today's economy. if we truly want to make this country in the nation's talent and ingenuity from all over the world, we won't deport hard-working responsible young immigrant appear or received advanced degrees here, we will let them earn the chance to become america's decisions so they can grow our economy and start new businesses right here instead of someplace else. [cheers and applause] now is not the time to go back to greater reliance on fossil fuels from foreign countries. now is the time to invest more in clean energy right here in america. [applause] my plan for energy doesn't

ignore the vast resources we already have in this country. we are producing more oil than we had in over a decade. but if we truly want to gain control of energy future, we have to recognize pumping more oil isn't enough. we have to encourage the unprecedented film and american natural gas. we have to provide safe nuclear energy and technology to help cool burn cleaner than before. we have to become the global leader in renewable energy, wind and solar and the next generation of biofuel. an electric cars and energy-efficient buildings. so my plan would end the government subsidies to oil companies that has rarely been more profitable. let's double down on clean energy industry that's never been more profiting. i want to put in place a new

clean energy standard that creates market for innovation that would make clean energy profitable for every business in america. with growing competition for places like china and india. now is not the time for america to walk away from research and development. now is the time to invest even more so that the great innovation of this century takes place in the united states of america. so that the next time thomas edison, the next right brothers is happening here in ohio or michigan or california. [applause] my plan to encourage innovation is not money order new ideas. it's about supporting the work of our most promising scientists, our most promising researchers launch benares are my plan would make the r&d tax credit permanent, but the

president or cannot do it alone and especially with basic research. it's not always profitable in the short-term. in the last century, research refunded together it's not always profitable in the short term. in the last century, research refunded together it's not always profitable in the short term. in the last century, research refunded together for the internet and gps and google and the countless companies and jobs that research refunded together for the internet and gps and google and the countless companies and jobs that followed the turkey named and created incredible companies, but we together made the initial investment possible. it has given rise to miraculous cures that are produced suffering the lives. this has always been america's biggest economic advantage. our science and innovation. why would we reverse the commitment right now when it has never been more important? at a time when we have so much deferred maintenance on imation's infrastructure, schools crumbling, roseboro 10,

bridges buckling. now is not the time to saddle american businesses with crumbling roads and bridges. now is the time to rebuild america. [cheers and applause] semi-plan would take half the minute we are no longer spending on war and use it to do some nationbuilding here at home. let's put some folks to work right here at home. [applause] my plan would get rid of projects, boondoggles, bridges to nowhere. but if we want businesses to come here and to hire here, we have to provide the highway from

the runways in the ports and broadband access, all of which moves goods and products and information across the globe. my plan sets up an independent project to attract private dollars and issued loans for new construction projects based on two criteria: how badly are they needed, and how much goodwill they do for the economy? [applause] and finally, i think it is time we took our fiscal problems in an honest, balanced, responsible way. everybody agrees that are deficit and debt are an issue that we've got to fix. my plan to reform the tax code recognizes that government can bring back every job has been outsourced or every factory disclosed his doors, but we sure can not giving tax breaks to

businesses that ship jobs overseas and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in the united states of america, in ohio, cleveland, pennsylvania. [applause] and if we want to get the deficit under control, and really not pretending to during election time not saying you care about it when someone else is in charge and you don't care when you're in charge. if you really want to do something about it. if you want to get the deficit under control without sacrificing investments have talked about the don knotts u.s. wealthiest americans to pay a little bit more, just like we did when bill clinton was

president, just like we did when our economy created 23 million new jobs come in the biggest budget surplus in history and a lot of millionaires to do. and here's the good news. there are plenty of patriotic or successful americans who do want to make contribution again. [applause] luck, we have no choice about whether we pay down our deficit. but we do have a choice about how we paid our deficit. we do have a choice about what we can do and where our priorities lie. i don't believe giving someone like me $250,000 tax cut is more valuable to our future than hiring trends for many futures are providing financial aid to the children of the middle-class family.

[applause] i don't believe it more likely to create jobs and providing homes for new watch for errors or tax credits to small business owners who hire veterans. i don't believe it's more likely to spur economic growth and investments in clean energy technology and medical research for new roads and businesses in runways. i believe giving someone like mr. romney another huge tax cut is worth unnamed the basic security we've always provided the elderly and the sickest ambos actively looking for work. [applause] those things don't make our economy week. what makes our economy because when fewer and fewer people can afford to buy the goods and service is don't have customers

if folks are having such a hard time. the tracks us all down as an economy in which there's an ever widening gap between a few folks who're doing extraordinarily well in a growing number of people who no matter how hard they work can barely make ends meet. [applause] style, governor romney disagrees with night vision. his allies in congress disagree with night vision. neither of them will endorse any policy that asks the wealthiest americans to pay even a medical more in tax news. it's the reason we haven't reached a grand bargain to bring down our deficit. that was my plan, not with the bull simpson plan, not with the so-called fixed plan.

despite the fact that taxes are lower than they've been in decades. they won't work with us on any plan that would increase taxes on our wealthiest americans. it's the reason that jobs zoetrope 1 million people back to work at and voted down time and time again. it's the biggest source of gridlock in america today. and the only thing that can break the stalemate is you. [cheers and applause] you see, in our democracy, this

remarkable system of government, use the people have the final say. [cheers and applause] this november is your chance to render a verdict on the today over how to grow the economy, how to create good jobs, how to pay down our debts. your vote was finally determined the path we take as a nation. not just tomorrow, but for years to come. [applause] strip everything else away, that's really what this election is about. that is what is at stake right now. everything else is just a distraction.

[applause] from now until then, both sides will spend tons of money on tv commercials. the other side will spend over a billion dollars on ads that tells the economy is bad, that it's all my fault, but i can't fix it because i think government is always the other or because i didn't make a lot of money in the private sector and to understand it or because i am in over my head or because i make everything and everybody is doing just fine. [laughter] that is what they will say. that is what mr. romney will say. that is what the republicans in congress will say. but you know, that may be their plan to win the election, but it's not a plan to create jobs.

it is not a plan to grow the economy. it is not a plan to pay down the debt and it's sure not a plan to revive the middle-class and secure our future. i think you deserve better than than.. at a moment this day, when so many people are still struggling, i think you deserve a real debate about the economic plans we are proposing. governor romney and republicans who run congress belatedly simply take away regulations and cut taxes by trying to dollars, the market will solve all of our problems on it down. if you've heard that, you should vote for them and i promise you they will take up the right direction. i believe we need a plan for better education and training and better independent to new

research and innovation, for rebuilding our infrastructure, for a tax code that creates jobs america can appease our debts in a way that's balanced. i have that plan. they don't. and if you agree with me, if you believe this economy grows fast when everybody gets a fair shot, when everybody does their fair share, when everybody plays by the same set of rules, then i ask you to stand with me for a second term as president. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause]

in fact, i'll take it a step further. i ask you to vote for anyone else, whether they are democrats, independents or republicans who share your view about how america should grow. i will work with anyone of any party who believes that we are in this together, who believes that we rise or fall as one nation and as one people. because i am convinced that there's actually a lot of republicans out there who may not agree with everyone of my policies, but believe in a balanced approach to economic growth and you remember the lessons of our history and like the direction their leaders are taking them. do not be a vp with one months.

if you consider your choice in november [cheers and applause] don't let anybody tell you that the challenges we face right now are beyond our ability to solve. you know, it's hard not to get cynical when times are tough. and i'm reminded every day of just how tough things are for too many americans. every day i hear from folks who are out of work or a foster home. across this country and meet people who are struggling to pay their bills. for older workers who are worried about retirement or young people who are underemployed and burdened with that. i hear their voices when i wake up in the morning on those verses rang in my head when i lay down to is late. and in those places, i hear the echo of my own family struggles as i was growing up in

michelle's family struggles and she was growing up and that fear is in the dashed hopes that our parents and grandparents had to confront. you know what? in those places, i also hear a stubborn hope and a fierce pride and a determination to overcome whatever challenges we face. [cheers and applause] and did you know, the american people, i am reminded of all the things that tilt the future in our favor. we remain the healthiest nation on earth come with the best workers, hochberg earth, scientists and researchers, the best colleges and universities. we are a young country. we have the greatest diversity of talent and ingenuity drawn from every corner of the globe.

so yes, reforming our schools, rebuilding infrastructure will take time. yes, paying down our debt would require tough choices and shared sacrifice. but it can be done. and will be stronger for it. and what's lacking is not the capacity to meet our challenges. but is lacking is our politics and that is something entirely within your power to solve. so this november, you can remind the world how a strong economy is held. not from the top down, but for me growing from striving middle-class. this november, you can remind the world how it is that we have traveled this far is a country. not by telling everybody to fend for themselves, but by coming together as one american family, all of us pitching in, all of us pulling our own weight. this november, you can provide a mandate for the change we need right now.

you can move this nation forward and remind the world once again why the united states of america is still the greatest nation on earth. thank you. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. ♪ [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

..

by this idea that the further you move away from the left the closer you get to bad things. racist, homophobic, sexist. and so in some ways the best working definition of a fascist is simply a conservative who is winning an argument. >> sunday night at 9:00 p.m. on book tv this weekend on c-span2. >> senate foreign relations committee chairman john carey continues his push for the u.s. to join the law of the sea treaty by holding to hearings on the subject today. the un law of the sea convention governs our nation's use international waters and has been signed by over 160 countries and the european community, but not the united states. we will hear first from the joint chiefs of vice-chairman

and chief of naval operations. they're former defense secretary donald rumsfeld explains his opposition to the treaty. this is two hours. >> let me begin, i want to try to clear up something, pick up on a theme that the senator and opened up in his opening comments. some in our very diverse media platforms that we have today, and whether it is an editorial or blog or wherever, have tried to suggest, no, you know, these guys in the military are coming there because the administration told them to come there. they're going to say what they have to say, but we can sort of discounted. so i want to get right at that right up front, if i can. are each of you, i believe, when you are confirmed you agree

before the senate that you will live up to individual advice and do what is in your conscious and so forth. but are you appearing today, any of you, under any kind of coercion or are you here because you believe in this tree and are expressing your personal view to the senate as the best advice that you can give the senate to perform our function? would you like to begin? >> i would invite my colleagues to speak up as well, but no one twisted my arm. i am here because i believe we should ratify the tweet -- treaty for. >> and the reasons you have given are reasons to believe in? >> yes, surf. >> let me run through the list. >> senator, i am here to give you my best professional and military advice on the tree, and i support it fully. >> yes, sir. i fully believe, as i said in my

opening comments, a practitioner, some months after operating on the seas for nearly four decades, i believe in this. more than anything else because we have young lieutenants commanding patrol boats, hallucinates who are making law enforcement boardings, and they need the clarity and the continuity and predictability that this convention provides in terms of making determinations on a daily basis on jurisdictional issues and other things. >> chairman, and here to because i want to be, especially because of not only the extensive career that i have had and been on the receiving end of certainly the support and operation like trans com has provided, but also because of my study of this convention and engaging our commercial partners and the need for us to be able to deploy, sustained, and then return home or were fighters, whether they

are supporting humanitarian operations or responding to another type of crisis. i will provide you my honest assessment. >> chairman kerry, i am here to support the law of the sea based upon my professional responsibilities, my experiences as commander and -- in every theater in employee committed to this approach. thank you. >> senator kerry, the men and women of pacific command with this issue every day. they are confronted with the aspects of ambiguities of not being a part of this treaty. i am here because i support this treaty, i support what the framework it gives the military commanders and those that work under me, the ability to make decisions that will be in the best interest of this nation, and the best interest of ensuring that we can't follow rule of law and not have

miscalculations that lead as in directions that we would not want to go as a nation. i am here to support this treaty . both professionally and personally supported. >> i think each of you. i had no doubt, but i thought it was important to have those statements on the record. i appreciate your candid answers admiral, you made a statement in the beginning of your testimony in which you talked about the misplacing of this notion about giving up our sovereignty in any way. in fact, you said it was the opposite. we would be growing our sovereignty. preliminary studies indicate that the extended continental shelf, which we don't yet -- it is not fully defined, and part of the reason as i understand it is to have that clarity about our extended continental shelf. right now the estimates are that

the continental shelf we would have exclusive rights to could conceivably be as high as 1 billion square kilometers, an area about twice the size of california, nearly half of the louisiana purchase. so what we are looking at here, are we not, is the opportunity for us to, in fact, gained exclusivity and clarity with respect to the rights over this vast area of additional land mass to the united states, is that accurate? >> yes, sir. >> and can you explain -- some people say, well, what the heck. we have the strongest navy in the world. no one will stand up to us. we will do what we want and need to do. if someone gets in our way we will enforce it. what is wrong with that? >> there are a couple of things specifically related to the continental shelf not withstanding the potential economic benefits, which i think would be covered in a different setting for the committee.

we would have much more control over the, as you point out, extended, and a shelf. as of today, theoretically, someone can come in and prospects for resources, up to us 201 miles away from our coastline. if the extended continental shelf is defined the way we think it ought to be defined, they would not be able to. now they're comes into question how he would have to enforce that under existing customary law or whether he would have the full force of the convention behind in. >> well, what is wrong with the approach to people disabled just go in and kicked him out? >> well, if the president tells them to do that we would be willing and able, we would rather play legal approach before we got to potential use of force. >> can you speak to this question?

>> while most of us are looking at national defence, i would suggest national security is only part of that being defense. there is also economic security, environmental security, energy security, and others that come into the equation. and when we are talking about the extended continental shelf and making determinations on where it might be, we need that parretti. i have a slightly more nuanced view, perhaps, than my colleagues because the coast guard is one of the five armed services that has the responsibility for law enforcement, u.s. laws on our waters and on the high seas. we would get it from a law enforcement perspective. use of force is one of our last resorts in abiding to the rule of law. we have to think on a daily basis how we conduct our law enforcement operations, and we need the predictability and stability of what those

determinations are based upon, which the convention gives us. >> senator. >> gentleman, you have discussed to areas that i want to touch upon. one of them was the growing complexity of the arctic situation. this may in part be because of the melting of ice. what are the ambitions of other countries to create sealanes to have commerce in the arctic well beyond that we have had before? it does raise points that you have made. it is not really clear this concerns law enforcement's not of sovereignty, but simply of indiscretions of various people involved or rescue missions for people who get caught in this situation. who does what and how all of this is to be worked out. i am hopeful that one or more of

you agree scully work will be of help to each of us to explain what the circumstances are for a seat which either expand or constricts or so forth quite apart from what the claims may be in terms of sovereignty and the boundaries. but i want to draw specifically on the pacific because we have had an interesting last week, some busy with the president of the philippines it came over. a very good time in terms of our relations with the philippines because of the growing of their economy. straightforward, honest president of the philippines. and furthermore, the philippines , having rejected powerfully to in recent years now is very concerned about definition of where the rights

are before the chinese. the philippines would joined vietnam, indonesia, other countries in wondering precisely who is going to enforce what. and for a variety of reasons, in part because of these laws, the sequesters have come into the orbit of our diplomacy and in a way that we have not seen in the last decade. let me just ask anyone of you, how are we going to work to define who owns our -- or governs or commands what in the south china sea in particular? in that large area between china and the philippines in which there are extraordinary resources and certainly very the definition of who does what. for the moment, a great deal of reliance upon the united states

fleet to bring the some definition to this. if we don't have lot of the sea, the question is, how do we define it? what are we prepared to do, and what of the american people prepared to do? it is one thing to talk about enforcing this in essence going to war over it, but at least in the old days this required a declaration of war. wanted to know if it was worth the sacrifice of individual human beings. so, can anyone give me some idea of where we are headed in the pacific, south china sea particularly. >> yes, sir. i can. in the south china sea you have, i think, a great example of how law of the sea should play out if done correctly. because of globalization they're are things that move in the

ocean and the south china sea, have the energy supply daily. one-third of our economy daily. all of the things that we talked about. so there are competing claims from the various coastal states in there. we have a tendency to want to talk about china, but there are a number of countries that have a scope to cut excess of claim. one is in a territorial dispute and the other is maritime disputes. so what the law of the sea would give us, it gives a framework on territorial dispute which the u.s. takes no position on between the philippines and the chinese or any other excessive territorial claim. but the law of the sea would give a framework for them to be able to have that dialogue in a peaceful way. our perspective is we don't want coercion. we want things done peaceably. we want them done in a framework that allows that to happen.

my understanding is that there are vehicles in the law is applied properly that would allow them that vehicle and they're desires of that. the other side is excessive maritime claims which are clearly laid out in the law of the sea. these are critical so we can maintain unimpeded access to those areas for the future that allow us to provide, if you want to call it, a security deterrent , that allows us to -- we have seven allies in the world and five of them are in this region. ensuring that our allies perspectives i looked at properly through a rule of law that allows us to continue to operate freely within. so this is why the law of the sea convention is important to me. >> yes, sir.

>> centers, one other new ones. i have been watching this. the responsibility of there, but the coast guard has responsibilities in the pacific as well, and one of the things we have seen china doing, as an indication they are operating under the rule of law they are, in fact, in maritime patrol vessels, more or less their coastguard vessels which are less provocative rather than sending large navy ships. once again portraying themselves as following the rule of law and acting within the convention. we have no means of disputing that unless we are party to the convention. i am involved with the chinese, north pacific coast guard forum. whenever we address issues like this, their first response is you are not a party to the convention. it puts us in a difficult position and makes our work much harder. >> if i may make a comment. one of the things i would like to pursue, the south china sea is one part.

deliver ships to admiral likelier and others. we are looking forward to dependable and predictable behavior by the elements in these maritime crossroads such as the south china sea. if each interaction ends up to be a debate or confrontation, it becomes unpredictable and then you get, you know, the unprepared, if you will, in this institute of debate which is okay if everybody is agreed upon with the customary international law is, but it evolves and becomes domestically derived in some location. that is kind of what we have right now. so, we say to ourselves, how do we preclude this? we should talk and not have belligerent behavior. pursue things like the military maritime consultative agreement talks with china, and there are others. i host hence of navy's,

international seapower symposium. having something like the law of the sea convention as a book that we all have agreed to and sit down and say, okay, let's talk about the protocols that we all agree to or what is the basis of the disagreements, that would be very helpful. >> i appreciate that. each of you know that we have briefings here about so-called pivot of our national defense toward the south china sea, toward the pacific. that is why it is very crucial in terms of a we're talking about today as well as our overall national defense and foreign policy. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me thank all of you for your service to our country. you have all indicated that you support the ratification of the law of the sea treaty. we have been in discussion of this for almost 20 years. this has been an issue that has been around for a long time.

i would like to get from you and assessment as to whether this is just something that will be nice to get out of the way in done or whether this is an important issue as it relates to our national security. >> i can start off, sir. i think it is an important issue. some have pointed out that there are no operations that we have been unable to conduct because we have not become a party to the convention. as we look to the future, which is what this is really about, and we see some of the erosions of customary international law that had been referred to, that is what we are really concerned about. we would rather not wait until that becomes a crisis. we would rather get the treaty ratified now so that we have the fundamental basis for us to do what we need to do and counter those who might be taking us on in the maritime environment. we believe it is an issue for

national security, in the future >> any disagreement on that? >> if i may, senator, the arctic , as mentioned earlier, i don't know what is customary. we will be defining our behavior and protocol. therefore, i would say this is an opportunity. >> in regard to the arctic, and that is an area that is emerging as to the issues, issues that are currently being thought of were not ten years ago. it is an emerging area of great interest to the united states. as i understand it, we are the only country that borders the arctic that is not a member of -- has not ratified the law of the sea. explain a little more about how that disadvantages us, as these discussions are taking place. >> senator, i and the commander of northern command, in my area of responsibility. arctic is a fast changing environments. it is harsh.

if you assets available. working together is really at a premium. opening of a new frontier, danger, uncertainty and opportunity. the idea that the strongest, fastest, most aggressive party can define the customary international law is not the approach that any of the eight arctic nations desire to take. it would empower me as i provide lead on behalf of the united states to start with that rules-based framework, the firmness of treaty law in order to start sorting through the uncertainty that we face of there. as i said, there is a large premium on working together. >> i thank you for that. i want to get back to china for one moment. i think back a decade ago when we were looking at china. we should be able to manage our trade issues. now we see how this has

developed. the maritime interest of china seems to be expanding. they seemed to be more bold than they have been in the past, some of which we believe are not appropriate under international law. can you tell us how ratification of the law of the sea would put us in a stronger position as it relates to maritime conditions. >> i can start and then turn it over. one of the things, as we have talked about, the concern about erosion of law. one of the areas where china has been asserted is in abridging national laws that would restrict maritime activity in their exclusive economic zone. some of that is very important to us from a military sense and perhaps in a classified briefing later in the year we can go over that. without being a party to the convention, we really don't have a leg to stand on if we try to

invoke the conventions. clear rights in terms of our ability to operate in that exclusive economic zone. that is, again, it potential future source of friction. we would like to see the fundamental underpinning of the treaty to back up our rights to do what we need to do from a military basis. >> i fully agree. it provides a solid, fixed, and favorable legal framework for us first to protect u.s. navigation and overflight rights as well as the sovereignty of our ships and aircraft. it would align, you know, as being part of the convention, it aligns our international legal authorities with those of our allies and partners and friends in that region, which is important. i think it would strengthen our standing to support our allies who are dealing with some of

these issues, particularly in the south china sea. and they are trying to find a mechanism to align their maritime claims with international law. so it would prove our overall support and standing as we try to get them to resolve in an ever increasingly complex environment. we have to look forward, not in the rearview mirror. the complexity of the maritime environment because of the demand for resources, because of the amount of goods. ten years ago the amount of things that float on the ocean across sea lions, in ten years it quadrupled because of the globalization of economy. we need to make sure we're able to work through disputes from a solid, fixed, favorable legal framework rather than resulting to every one of these issues being a standoff that could potentially lead to, i think, down a path we don't want to go. >> as i understand it in 1990's when this treaty was first

brought to the senate there were concerns. those concerns were shared by some of our allies. modifications were made, and our allies went ahead and ratify the treaty. the senate has not followed suit . from your testimony here today, am i correct to say that you believe today it is more important to ratify the treaty and it was a decade ago, circumstances continue to present additional challenges that to the law of the sea would help america in promoting its national interest and its national security. is that a fair assessment? even more important today than ten years ago because of emerging issues. >> absolutely. a decade ago there were not as many nations asserting claims into the maritime environment and the way they are as they are today. those excessive claims continue to grow. i would say, definitely compared

to ten years ago it is more important today. >> thank you. >> before i recognize the gentleman, let me quickly, on your question about the arctic, i just wanted to comment. i believe the russians are sending their fifth mission into the arctic to do ploting this summer. the chinese have been up there in a very significant way. is that not accurate? >> yes, senator. >> again, this will be part of our classified briefing for all of the members, but it is quite significant, what is happening there without recourse in any illegal way. >> that is correct. >> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman and each of you. i do believe that each of you are here espousing your own views. i know that sometimes we can have silos where one part of our government wants something to happen and other parts may be jeopardized. our role is to balance those. we thank you for being here and certainly for your service.

admiral, my friend and colleague asked you about china and the philippines. it looks to me like that it is just the opposite of what we just said. those two countries are signatories to the law of the sea treaty. there is a dispute and no resolution. it looks like the law of the sea treaty is not working as it should be with two countries having a dispute and both being signatories. i would like for you to explain why the law of the sea treaty has not already resolved the conflict there and what about it is failing. >> yes, sir. i think your perspective is correct. it has failed, to some degree. i think it has not been tried in some of these areas that are now emerging. i believe that there is opportunity. i get -- >> what do you mean it has not been tried? we had a conflict, a dispute. it looks to me like china has

basically said, we are sorry. we are not going to adhere to the treaty document. how is it working? >> well, at this stage my understanding is that the chinese want to solve this in a bilateral relationship. >> of the treaty is not working. is that correct? i mean, isn't there -- >> of the treaty provides mechanisms, should the partner states choose to use it or the signatory states choose to use it. so our perspective is, in our dialogue with our allies and our partners and as well as the chinese is that we want them to resolve this using standard rules and to use those that -- those mechanisms that are outlined in the convention rather than a bilateral way where you may end up having a course of perspective from one party to the other that drives a decision in the direction that we would not want to go. >> but it sounds like china is

saying, we don't care what you think. we want to resolve it in a bilateral way. i would say, to meet, it points to failure. we have a real-life example of the failure of this treaty. let me ask you this. you kept saying, and it just that this in no way affects our sovereignty. then you kept saying that if we are not a member, key decisions are being made that affect our sovereign rights. how can both be true? >> i would say, first of all, i want to add a little bit to what the admiral said. one of the things that helps us in the south china sea is that when we have the nations aligned together pushing against china, china intends to listen. when they can cut out somebody and go bilateral then they will tend to not go under treaty mechanism. if we are a party to the law of the sea and can put all of our

political power, diplomatic power behind that, it would tend to buttress the nation's into potentially supporting the philippines. so the law of the sea is not a magic formula to resolve a dispute. no one is claiming that, but it would allow us to have a little more credibility in entering into that environment. in terms of the 70's, what we would like is, we will be able as a party to the convention to have direct influence over how the convention is applied. we will be able to more fundamentally and with more credibility apply what is now customary international law embedded in the convention. >> but specific -- i understand all of those things. we are a member of the club and can therefore influence the rules of the club. if key decisions are being made right now because we are not up part of the treaty that affect our sovereignty, how can you say that the treaty does not affect our sovereignty?

>> because, we would be in the mechanisms of the treaty and able to counter decisions. >> well, wait a minute. you cannot say on one hand that the treaty in no way affect our sovereignty and then say that decisions are being made that affect our sovereignty. you cannot say that and have it be true. >> what i am saying is, by not being a party to the convention we lose our a virginity to preserve our sovereignty. >> that, by virtue of you saying that you're saying the treaty then has pieces of it that affect our sovereignty. >> it positively affect our sovereignty and avoids negative impact on our sovereignty. the extended continental shelf piece, we will not be able to assert that right unless we -- no one will pay attention. the radically someone could come 201 miles off of our coast and explore for natural resources and we don't have the power of the treaty to say, no, you cannot do that. >> admiral, can you give me one

example where us not being a part of this treaty has ever impacted your ability to board a ship or enforce u.s. law? one live example. >> absolutely, sir. we have countries within south and central america that have excess of territorial sea claims . oftentimes when you have these questions about jurisdiction we may have intelligence or we may have a target which we believe is smuggling drugs or people. we cannot gain cooperation from these countries that are outside the convention, were outside the convention. they have jurisdictional claims that we don't have the mechanism to dispute. on a routine basis not only do we lose cases, but oftentimes we lose time while we go through protracted and negotiations on jurisdictional disputes between countries for, in particular, drug interdiction. i would add, we are focused on countries that are challenging us around the world on a

day-to-day basis. i think, to buttress what the admiral was saying, even when our closest friends, we have disputes that can only be resolved within the convention. our border between canada and alaska is under dispute. we cannot negotiate with all the tools unless we are members of the convention. we have waters in northern newfoundland between maine and alaska where we have jurisdictional disputes in terms of transit that has prevented el and g port to be developed in maine because canada will not allow us to have free and unimpeded passage because, and i think they are on very lose footing here, we can't negotiate because we are not members of the convention. it is also with our friends, and those can be played against us because we have not signed on to the convention. >> i find it hard to believe we

could not reach a bilateral agreement. it sounds a little far-fetched, but i would love to talk to you more about it. i get the impression that we feel like that if we were a party to the law of the sea treaty that it would cause us to have some savings as it relates to dealing with maritime issues. is that correct, admiral? >> i don't know that there is any influence on the -- >> well, we are talking about the cost. we have a lot of cost because we are not part of the treaty and have to do things in a very different way. it seems to me i have heard that throughout the testimony. i don't think -- >> i don't think any of us have expressed that it would be more costly if we did not. in terms of financial terms, we will not have a different size navy. it just gives us another tool in the toolbox to do business as a navy and as a nation.

>> i respect each of you and say that, today's testimony, thank you very much for your public service, to me it has spawned things up more than it began. i very much appreciate and look forward to many 1-on-1 meetings as we hash this out and thank you for your service to our country. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me begin by just offering an observation on the exchange that just took place. without getting to the issue of sovereignty, and there are sovereignty issues involved, clearly, and what we are attempting to do in places like the south china sea. i would say as an observation countries in and of their nature compels certain actions by our country. that is why we come together and have this process carefully before we ratify a treaty.

may also cause an agreement among our governmental people to abide by certain standards. that is what a treaty is about. that does not mean, at least in my opinion, where we will be giving up any of our sovereignty rights. let me start with that. before i get into my question, i would like to join the chairman in recognizing senator john warner for his presence here today. he has been working on this issue for a very long time, from the time that he was in the department of navy and i was a 25 year-old marine on his staff a long time ago. it was a pleasure to follow senator warner, secretary of the navy, and also to be able to serve with him in the senate as my senior partner. tremendous regard for all his service and the work he has done in this area.

i believe that the indisputable starting point in this discussion really is that the international rules of the road for security and also for commercial exploration have never been more complex. this affects the issues of freedom of navigation, as you have discussed several times this morning. those are basically tactical questions that also affect issues of sovereignty. those are strategic questions. following issues of sovereignty, in and of itself, involves commerce and our nation interacts in a lot of areas that right now are not clear in terms of who has those rights. that is apparent in the arctic, as has been discussed. it is also clear in such areas as -- where after a number of years of quiet dispute in 2010

japan and china had a blowup over sovereignty that could have involved our security treaty with japan if it had gone further. it is clearly apparent in the south china sea. we were, from our office, the initial -- we initially offered a senate resolution condemning the chinese actions a couple of years ago involving the use of military force in the philippines and off of the coast of vietnam. we had unanimous votes by the senate that had two very important pieces in it i think in terms of the expression of the senate. one was deploying the use of force by naval and maritime security vessels from china.

the other was calling on all parties to refrain from threatening the use of force and to continue efforts to facilitate multilateral peaceful process is as we address these issues. and that's got to me, is a the most important component of what we're talking about today. we need to find the -- to the right forum to address disputes where claims can be resolved with the agreement of multiple claman's. this is a key point when we are discussing the activities of china, particularly to this point. not only to china. a lot of these that are potentially going to affect 70 rights and eventually commercial up competition. ossian has been mentioned. an evolving into the, a very important country, a widely, of varying governmental

system. they have been struggling for ten years now to find rules of navigation in sovereignty to try to calm down the process in this part of the world. a proclamation was issued trying to lay down rules of the road. they issued another recently. we have not been totally successful with china. we all know that, but we have been attempting to develop a number of different ways to encourage china to come in to the solutions process on a multilateral basis. from our office we have done the same thing with respect to the mekong delta air china does not recognize downstream water rights with all the damning that has been done upstream. it makes it difficult to bring china into multilateral solutions process and is no -- there is no place that it is true than when you look at the

sovereignty rights in the future activities and commercial endeavors. for that reason i think this is a format that will greatly assist us in the future. i know that there are questions on the other side. i'm sure all of you have seen the editorial in the "wall street journal" yesterday that was written by former secretary of defense rumsfeld per he said, the treaty remains a sweeping power grab that could prove to be the largest mechanism for worldwide redistribution of wealth and human history. i know that is not necessarily in any of your portfolios, but i would like to hear from you. what is the downside? what is the downside of this treaty? is there, in your view, a downside, admiral? >> on the security side i'm not aware of any downside that we can point to.

in fact, the up sides are really why we are here today. as i mentioned, it very much improves the 1950 geneva conventions, codifies entry lot of things that we need to do day in and day out as a navy and as a force. so in terms of the security side to my know of no down side. i have explored the commercial side. it is complex, but seems to me as though this was negotiated and modified in 1994 to our advantage. i would leave that to the economic experts to discuss, but i see no downside on the security side. >> senator, if i were to think of a down side it would be misinterpreting the advantages of what this will do for us. it will not solve everyone's problems. you laid out a very clear issues we have been dealing with for years and years. i think feeling that the law of the sea convention will solve unto itself is wrong. now we need to roll up our sleeves and go use it as the

instrument to now sit down with nations because we have a consistent instrument that we can use. >> yes, sir. i see no downside from a security perspective. i see a downside on status quo. it leaves us relying on customary international law, which i think is going to morphin a way that we cannot predict. it leaves us outside the full international legal framework that governs these rights and obligations and the actions of our allies, weakens our standing to object to an appropriate actions of other states that violate the conventions. 160 countries and they do not all follow the letter of the law. they're not there to be able to object, and it weakens our ability to shape potential changes to the convention that we may want to see in the future >> senator, i find it

interesting you used the rules of the road in the beginning of your statement. to me, that is one of the greatest analogies. determined by customary international law. the challenge was as we went from a sale to steam and vessels approached each other more quickly everyone had their new -- their own version. consequently collisions occurred all countries agreed at a certain point to collision avoidance racks which standardize things across the entire world for mariners at sea. stability, continuity, predictability in those rules which sailors depend upon. i think that is the perfect analogy for us, we continue under customary international law. it changes, and everyone has a different view. we negotiate in a position where this is most favorable to us, almost like having a winner in -- winning lottery ticket that you don't cash in.

>> i would suggest the series of exchanges we have had with china where they have insisted on only bilateral solutions is perhaps the strongest argument for us to proceed forward in this kind of where we can continue to encourage multilateral solutions >> well, thank you. that last point is a critical one. i am sorry we are not all here to hear you say it. everyone, i think, has agreed. one of the reasons we have our presence where we do in the pacific is because we are viewed by most nations out there as being the indispensable nation. and clearly china would love to just use its power to bilaterally leveraged some other country. if the united states is at current -- table and they're is a unity, their is a whole different equation that the

chinese must take into account. the virtue -- in fact, it advantages the chinese for us to be out. secretary clinton and others have told me personally that they have been rigged and, you know, kind of -- what is the board? made fun of in a jocular kind of way at various meetings when the subjects come up because we are not a member. they looked at him and said, wait, you are not a member and have no standing to bring this up. people need to weigh that as we go forward. >> chairman, people, we sit here every day, for you to come here and tell us that we cannot resolve a border dispute with canada because we are not a member of this law of the sea treaty really does that, and i am sorry you chose to go that route because i think those kinds of representations really undermine the statements and the

logical arguments made by others who want to see this treaty authorized. i was surprised, as all of you testified, the south china sea was not mentioned until we got to have moral law clear. i was going to go down the same route and i will touch on it at least some. i would say that most people in america don't realize what a mess the south china sea is an. the description that we have had here today has been very antiseptic. i have met with representatives of the government. it is not just the philippines, but other governments having the same kind of difficulties. they are begging for help. not one of them asked that we subscribe to the law of the sea treaty. they wanted you guys to do something about it. they wanted me to urge the president said do something about it, which i am not

inclined to do. but the senator has made the point that this treaty was negotiated 30 years ago this coming december 12th. it was adopted by the united nations a couple of decades ago. every one of the players in the mess, in the south china sea is a subscriber to this treaty. yet, this treaty is just a piece of paper, and it is just floury speeches like we have had here today and tell the gate opens and the rodeo starts. the gate is open and the rodeo started, and this has not helped one bit to resolve the tension, a dispute, what is going on in the south china sea. they are shooting at each other. there have been munitions' expanded, and this has not done one thing to help, as the senator has pointed out. can anyone of you point to me one thing that this treaty is

done on a specific basis? people, places, time. tell me one thing that this treaty has done to resolve the dispute and the tension that have taken place in the south china sea. and i don't want to talk about the future. i don't want to talk about what a wonderful document it is. i want to know, what did one country due to use the provisions of this treaty to help itself and the mess that they are in in the south china sea. who wants to try that? >> we pointed out, senator, already, that the treaty is not a magical document that will cure the ills of the south china sea. it is yet another tool, and i think that the nation's will feel more empowered to use whatever mechanisms were to insist the mechanisms and the law of the sea convention be used. our political backing and power and influence, and it might not

work. if that is the case, there are other mechanisms. why should we leave right away to the use of force or something along that order when we have the opportunity to bring our influence to bear. and the nations will be more comfortable if we are bringing our influence to bear treaty law behind us and if we are on the outside looking in with no credibility, having not exceeded to the treaty. >> i'm not suggesting that you should jump in with force. i am not suggesting that at all. what i am suggesting is, this has been an abject failure for the members who signed this and to have been members for years and years. they're coming, asking for help. can anybody answer my question? give me one example of a pension or a difficulty that was resolved as a result of this treaty by the members who operate in the south china sea. give me one example.

can anybody do that? >> i will take that as an answer. >> well, let me give you an answer. it is important to know that china, the philippines and vietnam have both specifically asked us to join the law of the sea in order to be able to help them leverage a peaceful outcome to the disputes of the south china sea. they cannot do it on their own because of china's power. china, until we are in the law of the sea, it does not listen to us because we are not party to it. i will make sure those documents and those facts are made available to the center, but, you know, china wants a different outcome. tennant is not want to submit to the law of the see right now, and it will take a different equation for china to feel compelled to listen. those nations are at a huge disadvantage. if you look at the map of what

china is planning, it is clear why. clearly the law of the sea on its own is not going to resolve it. >> sir. >> sorry. go ahead. >> mr. chairman, with all due respect, i don't understand that you have these countries that have signed this agreement that is supposed to resolve these kinds of disputes. should not make any difference whatsoever. 160 some countries in here, supposedly this document is supposed to do something to create a mechanism by which they resolve this dispute. it simply has not happened. >> senator, it does. it provides a forum with a set of rules. if a party to any dispute, true anywhere in any country any time. you have two parties, you know, whether it is a sports figure negotiating with a franchise owner and they go to arbitration because they cannot come to agreement because one party does not want to agree. how about the united states

senate, as super committee where we cannot get an agreement so we have a sequester. there are plenty of examples where people cannot agree and you need a structure to be able to agree. >> it has not worked with respect to the south china sea. with the presence at the table in conjunction with the other nations, the precursor has laid the predicate to other options if you have to come to them. most experts there would say absolutely. if you want to go to war with china over the south tennant should -- the south china sea you better let the predicate which is an exhausting every option peaceably. >> i would hope the united states does not give any consideration to go to war with china over the south china sea. this document was supposed to long ago have resolve this amongst the players in the south china sea and not one person has been able to give me is this a free sample has to one of these

disputes being resolved. >> with respect to the south china sea. for very obvious reasons. plenty of testimony that will show you the ways of which on an everyday basis countless decisions are made which create rules of the road. as the admiral testified, lay out the rules of the road which have assisted and avoided conflict and there are dozens of examples where conflict is avoided or various thorny issues have been resolved by virtue of people being at the table. we have had arms control agreements. we did not always have a resolution as a result, but ultimately we found the former mechanism to try to move forward a fundamental belief about whether you think it is better to have some structure within which you can work these things through what you want to do it on an absolutely ad hoc basis. i don't think anything should diminish the veracity and the

impact of the evidence that says, from our commanders who are dealing with, you know, young officers and sailors and forces and various ways on a daily basis or put in harm's way trying to do a board and search or stop a drug interdiction or whenever it is, they are advantage, according to the testimony of these commanders by the presence of this agreement. you may not agree, but these are the commanders telling us on a daily basis that those advantages are there. with respect to the south china sea, i would rather have the united states be at that table, and i bet you that if we are we can help resolve some of those issues. >> senate foreign relations committee chair john carey continued his push for the u.s. to join the law of the sea treaty by holding to hearings on the subject today. the you and law of the sea convention governs how nations use international waters. signed by over 160 countries and the european community, but not

the united states. we will hear first from the joint chiefs' vice chairman and chief of naval operations. later former defense secretary donald rumsfeld explains his opposition to the treaty. this is two hours. >> there are so many parts of this. i am going to focus on just one, and it will pick up right where you left off. i have your testimony in front of me. this caught my eye, so i'm going to focus on it. on the fourth paragraph on page ten you state, some have argued that the convention might obligate you as -- the u.s. to comply with international environmental agreements such as kyoto protocol, to which the u.s. is not a party. i am one of those people. i don't believe that it might. i believe that it will. the first sentence of the next

paragraph you state conclusory, the terms of the convention do not require parties to comply with other international environmental treaties. that was your conclusion. you quote a small portion of one sentence. i know you are familiar, but i wish you would take the treaty in front of you end up with me to article 212, subsection one on page 1705. have you got that in front of you? [inaudible] >> pardon? okay. great. the very first part of the sentence says -- states, shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control pollution. nothing wrong with that. there are no sideboards. it does not say exactly what we have to do as long as we enact some kind of law. no difficulty with that, but when you turn to article 222, if you go to the middle of the

first paragraph, if you read what we just read -- i'm sorry, article 222, page 180, page 180. it is about the middle of the page. the treaty goes on to state that the signatures shall adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and standards established to -- through the competent international organizations or diplomatic conference prevent, reduce, and control pollution. that will be the law of the land how long do we think it will take a federal judge to find kyoto or any one of the other conventions that they have as being a competent international

organization which has set standards and rules which, by this language, we have exceeded. you are going to find a gaggle of judges tripping over each other to force the epa and other organizations in the united states to say, you shall, just as the congress of the united states senate has said, you shall adopt these rules and regulations. that does not trouble you at all? >> well, senator, i appreciate your concerns. these were exactly some of the issues that were looked at under the bush administration. you will recall, in our first year one of the treaties we reject it was in fact, they kyoto particle. the bush administration was very concerned about that. >> we want to focus on this. >> i just want to emphasize that we were approaching this from a perspective that i think is sympathetic to your position. with respect to air c-span and

222, it says we shall adopt laws and regulations. but then only taking into account internationally agreed rules. we don't have to -- we don't have to enact kyoto. >> nothing wrong with that. >> it says that we shall enforce those laws that have been adopted in accordance with article 212, paragraph one. ..

what they mean by applicable, by the word applicable is applicable rules by the situation at hand. >> well, i understand your grief in the plain text of the period it is very difficult to read, as all of us have pointed out language like this and i agree with you. that is why it took us in the bush administration a considerable amount of time to work our way through these. i can tell you is is your raise a legitimate concern, but the long-standing view of the bush administration and as i understand the new administration is to say, applicable international rule means that it has to apply to you. treaties that have been negotiated by other people to whom we are not party don't apply to us. and secretary rumsfeld, i'll probably agree there a lots of international human rights rules that people said we ought to abide by, but we were not party

to and we would say those are not applicable to us because we have not become party to them. >> you are willing to take the chance of that tortured interpretation will be accepted by the united states district court in the united states? >> yes, sir. i am with you on this that you raise concerns. i have seen lots of l'affaire brought by groups, better country than people upset with the unitas dates. it is fair to raise that as a concern. that is the view about the meaning of those terms. and on balance, you take into account with respect to u.s. companies, there's a false choice to suggest that u.s. companies that we don't join the treaty should still go ahead. so we're basically denying them the opportunity, even if you have a fair point on environmental litigation.

the benefits of the treaty to u.s. businesses in u.s. treasury and u.s. navy outweigh what may well be. >> appreciate your judgment in that regard. thank you, mr. chairman -- >> senator, as you take off or go home or whatever it is, article ccxcvii, i direct you to take a moment to read that in your travels. paragraph c., which is pretty clear that the only way in which anything regarding the environment would apply to us is where it is applicable to let us because we signed up to it or were part of it. that is exactly what mr. belcher is saying. in fact within the four corners of this agreement is a dispensation against any state. united states or anybody else

doesn't sign up to international law. no standing, no exposure. >> i don't read it that way, but thank you, mr. chairman. >> languages black-and-white. >> if you only take one section you can read it your way. but if you apply the entire lot, it's different. >> i know you need to leave, but i want to simply say that i don't want that to be an argument between us. it's a completely fair point reading that language in a fair question to ask. there's an argument on the other side. i have given you to view about the bush administration, looked at these things very seriously and are not environmental legislation and thought that was the better interpretation of that provision. even counterbalancing those risks still overall the benefits of the treaty would still counterbalance against the risk that you raise. so i understand and support those concerns.

>> thank you, senator risch. senator good. >> thank you, chairman kerry for the opportunity to join in the second hearing today on the law of the sea. this morning as others have noted with six four-star officers testify to ratifying the convention would substantially include the flexibility of the united states inability to fulfill respected provisions. in 1994 the professors have almost unanimous they made the same claim. that means those who oppose this treaty convincingly explain why the proponents of admirals and generals who have claimed the treaties of values are wrong. they've made a strong effort to do so from his 20 years the leaders continue to maintain their claim that not ratifying ratifying makes the jobs of the men and women who serve under the harder and more dangerous. i want to be clear and grateful secretary rumsfeld and mr. groves have testified on something they feel strongly.

they are well worth considering in answering and i believe they have been answered. i hope we can answer them again today and i hope we can do it in a way that makes it in a way that it's not a threat to the american way of life in a serious row navigation we discussed earlier today are you really cannot say to deny women who serve in the armed forces. i had in this morning to naval operations and on his best advice to the president and admiral locklear of pacific command. we discussed the operations of what they mean and how they work and what opponents of the treaty would have is entirely rely on and what that instead means and we talked about the strategy, but it's important to remember at the end of the day their sons and daughters and mothers and fathers who serve and we put them come at times they display in harms way because of our

refusal to ratify. he said in your testimony that the united states for sailors and i needed jeopardy when carrying out freedom of navigation to contest the abuses. could you elaborate on how men and women actually out there in contested areas are put in a needed jeopardy? >> well, i repeat about earlier this afternoon before you arrived, senator. there is an element of risk involved in this and am trying to think of specific examples. i think i go back quite a ways here because i recall a time at which i was working in the bureau of oceans and environment and science and we have this challenge program where we identify maritime claims that we think are not supported by international law and where we feel our navigational interests are attacked to. if i remember correctly and john will correct me if i'm wrong or

perhaps secretary rumsfeld, the goals of libya was one of those because the libyans had a rather restrict interpretation of freedom of the seas in the polls there, so we would deliberately failing to what they consider waters over which they had greater jewish jurisdiction that we recognize and that always come especially you do with a regime that is not exactly predict the bowl until a certain amount of risk for those forces undertaking those exercises. so i don't impeach you can say that the law of the seas is a substitute for these kinds, for the exercise of our navigational rights. we are always going to exercise them. but it does reduce the level of risk. >> well, thank you him ambassador. one of the things i welcome works found on further some have seized upon, and made in a previous panel by general dempsey and some of the folks at

testify today who suggest that the law at the street treaty at this convention has ratified would not help with forced reduction that i feel it to ratify doesn't put our nation at greater risk, but to be clear, who is supporting the law provide additional tools that would help our military were safely conduct their mission? >> another area, speaking as farmer direct your national intelligence, the fact that you have an internationally recognized freedoms of navigation between the 12-mile outer limit of the territorial sea and the 200-mile resource and the fact that this convention now, not if it's modified or maybe somebody, but now recognizes the right of freedom of navigation inherently protects certain intelligence equities that we have.

>> mr. groves coming your testimony recognize the department of defense that issue posted review paper for 93, which states the freedom of navigation program has served to preserve fundamental navigation with acceptable risk cost enough for her. and i just have to question your assertion that 20 years later there is no evidence to suggest a change in circumstance such that u.s. accession to the convention has become essential to the successful execution of the global mission. over the past five years as a mention in the previous panel this morning the actual number of countries which the united states has tripled. it can't eat without risk, without cost, without effort and we might differ about whether it's acceptable. you see any change the past 20 years that may change you will have an additional valuable tool if it were to exceed?

>> thank you for the question, senator. our navy has had challenges. we managed a couple of world wars. we made it through the cold war, the bulk of which are a great deal of which was happened after the conventional long was signed. we've had incidents with the soviets. we've had incidents of china. the challenges are always going to be there. the question is whether joining the convention is of such significance that those challenges will either somehow go away or that we have additional tools to address some. my view is that due to the other costs that are involved with the treaty, what i believe to be a marginal affected during the convention is greatly outweighed. that said, the navy will

continue to project force and will continue to engage in freedom of navigation operations. as you heard from general dempsey, our ability to project force is based on a treaty. thank god it's based on continuing to have a strong navy. so it is just our view, or my view that we needed a cost benefit analysis come whatever benefit the navy may experience pain during the convention is outweighed by the other provisions that have those very real cause and risks. >> so if i hear you right, not coerced in your mouth. >> you could do worse than not, that's fine. >> you would agree is feared unanimously, from the general or admiral to testify this morning and general dempsey on others who have testified, there would be a benefit to armed forces and having another tool in having the opportunity to pursue finding arbitration without with

allies at what you sometimes have to engage in the costly, risky exercise. you've view of the overall costs of that benefit. >> i went to agree with men and women in uniform that there'd be an actual benefit. when i study it, what's come clear to me is nothing changes operationally. we still do the exact same way when we protest the country for an excessive maritime claim. but the freedom of navigation operation be seen through the same way, giving the same notice. so when i search for for people at the department of defense for hours to find out is what what exactly change operationally. give me a reason to believe there is a tangible and real benefit for the navy here. i haven't been satisfied on that front. so when you weigh that against

the other costs, i come down on the side of skype them. >> mr. gross, appreciate the testimony. part of what got me interested in this is a mention in her previous hearing was a personal mini with the formal operations who analyzed in pattern came out in exactly the same place and same but there would need operations that would not need to be connected and could instead be resolved through mechanisms of the treaty and that would reduce risk and cost and exposure on duty and allow us to focus valuable resources on areas where we genuinely needed to continue these operations. so thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for the opportunity. >> that may just remind. mr. gross, let me pull your attention to the fact because i went through the testimony.

in the 64 stars to testify today, i really wanted to see what they were specifically saying an affected pin down the way he did, too. i came up with 16 advantages a specifically defined in your testimony and i commend it to my colleagues 16 positive differentials become a virtuous signing onto signing on to this. one of them is very clearly articulated detail by coast guard papp of interdictions of narcotics, boarding and searching the caribbean and elsewhere. there are a whole series of very specific rules of the road, and a son, they relieve pressure cooker. and you need to have the full statement of general dempsey. general dempsey did say in our force, but he didn't say that there aren't, you know, and additional risk they are.

we're not going do this or force because because hopefully the united states congress and whoever is president will always remain committed to the strongest worst possible and we will be able to protect her interests. that is not the issue here though. the issue is what general dempsey said and the rest of the statement. i'll read to you quickly. he said, the failure to ratify puts herself at risk of confrontation with others who are interpreting customary international law to their benefit and the risk of confrontation goes up. and what all of the commander said today and i think this is an important subtext of the testimony was that the world is changing very rapidly. other nations are pressing for resources in ways they have not ever been before. china, all over the world we know that. resource oriented policy beyond anyone else. and given that pressure for

resources and that we will become a planet going from 7 billion to 9 billion in the next 30, 40 years, that is only going to increase. what they are saying, all of them is that this provides an orderly process for how to manage your way through that increase pressure and tension that is part of it increases the urgency. the second thing they cited and it's important for every manager to realize the mets will have a classified briefing. our intel community that they are actors right now that are behaving in ways to challenge as we would have been in that and that will be raised in a classified briefing. i want to be sure about general dempsey says that make it to

senator and brush that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i find it very important in terms of historical revolution before the administration and congress. specifically a good men stand the test of an indicated that the bush administration made the primary treaty beginning in 2002 the formulation committee as republicans majority. a good number came off the shelf and what a good debate. it was unanimous at that point

in favor of the treaty. unfortunately, there are other priorities and as a result it was not florida-based in that opportunity pass. republicans lost the majority and senator biden became up again in 2007. once again that this administration testified very strongly in the same lame and on that occasion as i recall there were four negative those, but the treaty went to flirt i senator hear me, not a democratic majority leader did not find it convenient to take up the treaty. in the meanwhile, the question that was raised by secretary rumsfeld by use mr. belanger and

you mr. rumsfeld as i made as to the testimony. on one hand, and this committee is not only president reagan's viewpoint. it is coded by secretary rumsfeld, essentially the question as, is there such a thing as internationalization of the seas. is this something that belongs to all mankind, to just come and say that express this someday is an absurd that belongs to all mankind. on the other hand, the question we have to resolve this product and people mention lockheed martin, but i received a letter with other members of the committee and mr. bob stephen silver at lockheed martin. i quote this part this is the multibillion dollars investments needed to establish a notion based resource development business must be predicated not clearly cowrites established and protected under the treaty-based framework of the convention, including international seabed

authority. so i'm the one hand you can take a position that the ocean out there, whether it's close to her shorelines or 200 miles and not it's nobody's business. and there is no idea of internationalization. nobody owns it. she simply a question of whether you want to go out and build our non-and your chances. but ms. stevens' status as a part of matter in terms of any american businesses, very few of such drilling will occur that involve hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more, without some legal basis, some assurance, some treaty. as a matter of fact, protection was right. we can talk about all those resources being out there. but the facts are that there is very little drilling for them without people seem very precarious about it in american business among them are saying

if we're serious about energy resources, energy independence, are a security, then we need this framework. it is a legitimate argument as to whether anybody owns any thing. all i'm saying is the treaty provides a practical means by which we might proceed in this world and particularly in this country given the resources and investment we have. i come back to visit questions with those of you who have been testifying about this is a central issue in mass. i see secretary rumsfeld, you are evenhanded in discussing philosophically the question, but how do you come down on the question of mr. stephen's letter? that is, why would lockheed martin receives without there being at least the assurances provided by law of the sea? >> well, i don't know if they

would proceed, but it seems to me that a businessman makes a cost and a benefit any risk analysis and they want as much certainty as they can at. and there is no question but it's perfectly logical for businesses in this instance to prefer certain miss. on the other hand, businesses all the time enter into uncertain investments. and at some point were they decide that the risk is real estate for investment, they will go right ahead because there's nothing preventing them from doing that. second, i haven't thought about this, but having been in business seems to be the easiest thing in the world if someone really wanted to do it. the american public has got technology. they're skillful, have resources and you can always do a joint venture with another company that is a member. i don't know why they couldn't. maybe they wouldn't get a license pose a joint venture.

but i just don't know the answer to that question. but there is nothing that i've seen that legally in any way prevents them, other than they are assessments come as the chairman said about the risk is in my spare. >> well of course, that is a good statement. but they are not taken notice. we keep asking and daring investors to buy more energy and at least deliver us and businesses and it's an interesting question if you're tied up with someone who is the law of the seas treaty person, but this is legitimized in a way that the law of the sea once again to make possible of

sharing whatever the process that the sharing is royal emissaries at all the world and so forth is not in our interests, even that has been downsized over the course of time. how does the bush administration com and 82, rather 2002 to the thought that this should be the prime treaty? why was there that change of you at that point? >> i guess that may go to me. my job, one of my responsibilities as legal advisor after 9/11 we were mostly focused on other things like terrorism was about to look at all the treaties we inherited from the clinton administration nowhere before before the committee here and decide which ones were priorities. we took a really big sky than they are not competent priorities of the last

administration of me not number off the list. we were particularly skeptical. there are lots of people in our administration with a lot of internal differences about whether this was the right thing. it took us closer to a year come until february 2002 to move it to the top of the list. i wouldn't say was the administration's top treaty priority. we didn't rank them one to 100, the reset the spies a treaty that was a priority that the senate should ask on. and just to summarize, the military advantages, particularly after 9/11, we were asking our military to do more with less and is easier to rely on i think secretary rumsfeld acknowledges that part, but the economic and business advantages for things that just could not be gotten in other ways. if there is another way to do it, it would not have been -- that would not have been a good argument. we couldn't see another way for american come the names,

particularly as the arctic opened up enormous advantages are there for us and we were watching canada, russia, denver, norway, are making billions of dollars. norway has a petroleum fund of $700 billion that has gotten for people from oil and gas up in the arctic. and so we see what they've been doing up there inside for companies to be able to do this, we need to become party to the treaty. so that was an additional benefit. and then there were environmental benefits as well. the health of the world's oceans. >> thank you very much. thank you, senator lugar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i won't go into what i did this morning, but when we had the generals are, secretary rumsfeld, commented from experience in the military that we have a chain of command. it is kind of interesting all these people in this morning we

had 24 stars for us and yet, i submitted a letter of 33 stars who are retired. it seems like once they retire, things kind of change. i was suspected that was a little to do with the chain of command. of course president obama was before him. of course president bush. >> can i say to you, senator -- i'll give your time. i'm not going to the beach or time, that you are impugning the entirety of the testimony. each of them said they were there personally. it was their personal belief. no one twisted their arm and no one requested otherwise. >> not suggesting otherwise i know the chain of command. i ask you, secretary rumsfeld, how does it serve our national security interest to send not appropriated, essentially entitlement spending to an international organization for

payments that go to countries. is there anything you can see somehow that enhances national security? >> that is the admirals and generals testify too narrowly. they did not get into anything that was brought up. >> in fact, i wasn't surprised they wouldn't want to get into that, but i would like to ask you, mr. groves. i presented a case on tuesday's hearing i'm still waiting to see if anyone disagrees. under our currently the percentage ranges between 12.5 and 18 and three quarters%. that is. because the point at which a company is going to go risk of capital to go after is the main reason we have arranged instead

of a specific come out. the 7% granted wouldn't have been for 12 years. at that point, it would. and while you sit in your testimony, mr. groves, that there is no way to predict what it would be commodious interagency task force that it would be aliens, if not chileans. so i thought maybe a trillion dollars as an example would not be unrealistic. just a comment in terms of that, the amount of money we can make talking about here? >> it sounds to me we may have mixed the royalties they relate to the area as opposed to the deep seas. >> paschall. >> the other half has an even inside. >> the reason i asked the question is without this we can't get in and develop the content itself.

>> a major takeaways should have here is how much money is really a state. there's been no study about the hydrocarbon resources on the u.s. ecs, which is passed. it's twice the size of california. there is an aeschylus agosta to last up to alaska and down to the south's essay. we can say here today have no idea how much oil and natural gas is out there. the 1% and 7% royalty on those hydrocarbons forevermore. that is atomic a fiscally responsible thing to do what we don't even have the first clue about how much is out there. now, the ecs task force is that the only number out there that either found, which as i said could be trillions of dollars, trillions with a t. and plural. so we know at least from a gross

estimation that we are talking about a significant amount of money. until the study of stone and until we have even the slightest idea of how much money we could give it to the treaty, i don't think is responsible or prudent to accede to it. >> i would agree to that. >> a lot of discussions i contended this morning that i know where the table is, we have the imo and apparently has performed well. what i would like to have you do, mr. groves countess talk about the differences between the council and the assembly and how veto works in this respect. >> sure. the international seabed authority, where it's called is made up of the secretary, made up of the council 36 countries and made up of the assembly of 162 countries and that's called the supreme court denied the

authority. now there's a couple of narrow questions, narrow but important questions that the council can make recommendations on that the council can make recommendations on that the council can make recommendations on that the council can make recommendations on distribution of this article, 82 royalties. but what is basically the ability to block consensus has been kind of transmogrified by proponents of the convention into the blanket veto power that the united states would have over the entire operations of the authority when in fact it's a very narrow ability and if we have the ability to block consensus, so do the other 35 members. between the other two bodies when you have council for its recommendations about the distribution of article 8032 royalties and you have an assembly, which is the supreme organ making the final decisions about the distribution of those royalties, we know them and who will find that discussion

regardless of whether there is some balance of authority between the two bodies. we know that because we studied other international organizations and a multitude of contacts. >> well, it would seem to me it's kind of not all that significant to be talking about that. the big issue is they have the power to extract that money that otherwise would be royalties to the united states. >> sure, before we talk about the supposed veto, we party committed to all the royalty payments to the authority for redistribution. so the horses already out of the pen. >> the word veto is a little confusing and assigns that it is the constitution by president can veto some paint. like the united nations in this

instance and nato where i served as ambassador he gets 40 years ago is operated by consensus. or even different from the u.n. security council. a second point on the military issue that you raised again i'm no expert but i read about the military activity exemption. there's no definition of that. and the very structure, and the judicial structure that mr. gross described would be worth that definition would eventually evolve. and if you think about it, the military activity can simultaneously be economic activity. an environmental activity. i remember we had lawsuits against the son of serving as secretary of second time because

sonar was adversely affect him well year. and you can end up with a series of problems for the people contest this and frankly i don't think i'm smart enough to know if that definition could be without landing a series that ambiguity. >> i do remember that discussion. and mr. groves i noticed you were making comments that responses from some of the witnesses. is there anything you would like to add right now at this time there might be helpful to us? >> such a great open-ended question. >> well, i think i would just like to debunk the idea that there's oil companies fighting for us to join this treaty in order to engage an exploration of our extended cut mental shelf. there is a chart my testimony. the one that looks like it is

indicates all of the areas that the extended continental shelf in the gulf of mexico that the united states authority leased out to american and foreign oil exploration can be used. so the idea that this is going to be some great prohibition on this development is some game i don't agree with. these companies have made the business decision to buy multimillion dollar leases from the united states government to go on the extended cut mental shelf regardless whether there's a party at this treaty and whatever international certainty that comes along with it. if there's something i would have come out that. the mac i appreciate that and i appreciate the time. one last thing, either in the frailties you can think of, i am most is something that hasn't worked in the past is corrected by this? >> the imo is the form for all of the things the proponents

allege are being discussed at the law perceived meanings are actually being -- >> is the real tale. >> that's correct at us with a draw the schemes and the ark of the logic scheme aims to end a niche treaties and other environmental obligations. that is her actual multilateral decisions are made and not foreign. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> before i recognize senator robinson, for the record, mr. bellinger coming commit do you have any for the argument? >> to the point on mexico? >> the argument that mr. gross just made to exploit and the royalties issue. >> i think the point and i think this is perhaps the most important question for the senate really is the suggestion is that if we don't join the convention, then we still get all the benefits. and so, it's a choice between

joining the fought convention or her manager the convention u.s. companies get to do other things and don't have to pay anything. there seems to me a false choice based on the companies have been saying to us. if not to the royalties flow to the ifa. it's to the treasury. of course i had the choice i would much prefer to have all the royalties paid to the treasury. but the truth seems to be companies will either mine and the deep seabed and the sentimental continental shelf and are willing to pay groceries under five years or that the u.s. government to do it or they won't do it at all. said the choice is either lots of royalties to the treasury and not those u.s. companies and goes to the isi or nothing at all. that seems to be the choice can nns. >> i see you're taking a deep breath. anything you want to add to

that? >> i would say this is particularly pertinent. i represent and secretary rice that one of the art date circle conferences with the russians, danes, norwegians and canadians. and it was clear that this is one area where companies do feel inhibited from exploring and exploiting beyond 200, where we may have continental shelf that extends as far out of miles. >> it's important that issue be resolved. >> i want to come back with nick in the second round. i just say, mr. groves, you are right. they are very smart to do so. but there is a huge gulf between buying. there's a whole bunch of releases for years, but they don't exploit them. they are not diamond drilling.

the capitalization is where this is. i want to come back if we can. senator isakson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize i am late into the panel, but i have one question that i think is significant. i want to thank secretary rumsfeld and secretary negroponte. remember secretary rumsfeld transformation of our military and how it prepared us for the unseen events of the last decade and i saw john negroponte in baghdad most difficult days of our conflict during both of you deserved tremendous credit for your service to the country. my question is to mr. bellinger and mr. groves. i am not an attorney. i love listening to attorneys go back and forth, but i have the university of moscow student so

i post an discretion to veto. if they want you to research this thing and i want you to talk about the veto because some people say we've got a veto and some people say now you see now you don't. and he did a beautiful paper and i want to read to quotes and then i would like both of you to comment as it relates to this question, do we have a veto or do we not? one is that the veto is the absence of any -- i mean, the consensus defined by the treaty is the absence of any negative objection or from objection for the members. is that correct? which means if there is a proposal before the council or the assembly, as long as nobody object to it, they had consensus and move forward. if one member of the 35 member council of check days, then what do you do? i want to read the sentence. if all efforts to reach a decision by consensus, which is nobody object it has been

exhausted, decisions on questions or procedure, members present and voting on decisions on questions of substance shall be taken by two thirds majority of members present and voting. that says to me we may have a veto to stop some incriminating and they can start consensus that the veto can be overwritten by a two thirds vote of the full assembly or by a majority of voters are those voting for the council. i just would like both of you to comment on am i right? is my last in a broad? >> can i help your last june a little bit? >> i'm not mentioning his name. i do want to get them in trouble. >> i don't want to get them in trouble either, but he is actually taking that from the 1982 original agreement and not from the agreement as amended. >> good here that the information i'm looking for. at that year from both of you. >> greatest respect for the

university of virginia where have my own master's degree from. i left the university of virginia law student, but i would say when the long-standing position of both administrations on this very point is that we fix the problem and accounts of adding to give the united states the predominate council, so we are the only country that is a permanent member and the council has to be the one to make decisions and potential matters and where you just read there is not agreement. he did not mention the cost that size, and this is in section three, paragraph 5, except for the convention provides for decision by consensus in the council. so the united states is always an account soul, always the

permanent member. section three paragraph to say his for in the organs of authority should be by consensus. it says they are for the prevention provides by consensus and council refers to administrative budget the u.s. would have a veto over any decision was made into administrative budgetary matters, which include distribution of these. so that is why we believe the bush administration, with slick that this believes the united states would have a critical role in deciding whether an mr. gross conceded that point. even if you didn't, that is our interpretation and i think that is why you love lawyers. >> i am a lawyer. i am a recovering lawyer. now, there is no doubt what the treaties as in the black letter law of the treaty when the

consensus can be reached. and i would concede that as the u.s. was part of the treaty and on the counselor could money tied up on some important issues. the important part is that the treaty is silent about, which is what happens for no consensus can be reached on the council at all. let's say hypothetically because the u.s. is putting its foot down on some thing regarding royalties. and from the silence of the treaty, the only rational explanation is that the assembly could act bypassing the resolution without the recommendations of the council. you seek him at the on a the end of the article 82 royalty recommendations, the council only makes recommendations in the assembly makes the final decision. the reason why we know this to be true is that further on in the article in the 1994 agreement says that the council's decision on financial

matters shall be based on the recommendations of the finance committee. so at the council has to be basing their recommendations on recommendations of the finance committee, echoed farther down the line. at one point or another someone will make a decision. we see this in international organizations on the time. from my view, especially with the sounds of the treaty, it is going to be the supreme organ of the authority, the 162 number 30 can make that decision. >> mr. chairman, you are commenting about the 94 agreement. >> you are talking about title 11, which is the amendment. >> all so and 94, on page 272, section three, decision-making actually give us protection. i will read it to you.

decisions of the assembly can this go to mr. groves deep concern and let the assembly may do, the achievements, what we achieved in 94 and the implementing agreement made clear that the assembly is not permitted to take action on any matter within the competence of the council unless the council has first recommended the assembly do so. so the council controls the agenda. let me read right out of there. decisions of the assembly of any matter for which the council also have competence and this sausalito and the distribution of revenue and a whole bunch of other things. so the confidence is in the council appeared and decisions which the council has confidence or in any administrative budgetary financial matters shall be based on the recommendations of the council

if the assembly does not accept the recommendation for council in any matter, and shall return the matter to the council for further consideration. the council shall reconsider the matter in the light of the views sized by the assembly. another is come as robin. council has the final say. counsel has the original site. there's serious limitations on it and the assembly effectively does not have this fearful power to come in and do send in that she might be concerned about. i might also add, if you don't like what it is doing, we can come back to base. or let's say you get your businesses out there and suddenly royalties are produced and all of a sudden it's a bonanza and you get a trillion dollars to become active at any minute. article cccxvii, page 208, the state party made by written notification addressed to the secretary-general of the united nations denounced the invention

in any case reasons. the denunciation shall take effect one year after the date of the notification and others just get out of it. you are not on the transit dollars are locked in for a lifetime. just leave. if you don't like what it's doing, get out of it. so i mean, this is really not as complicated as they made, but we have to continue to go out. >> if i may just comment briefly, mr. chairman aired first on the council issue coming as the language does that any of these administrative budgetary financial matters shall be based on the recommendations of the council, but just three paragraphs later says decisions by the assembly of the council had financial or budgetary implications shall be based on the recommendations of the finance committee. so if you're a member of the finance committee -- >> we can't block consensus on the finance committee.

>> i believe we can. >> we can block -- we can block or control the finance committee. these are really the great changes the united states made. one thing if they could come a senator. two things for senator isakson. it's quite useful. the paper was done for one of our negotiators, which i encourage your staff to look out for oxen back in 1994 that describe how all of president reagan's concerns were fixed by u.s. negotiators and how they ended up giving the u.s. enormous influence over every one of these issues, including the permanent the council in effect to veto. i will ask that that be put into the record. one of the most interesting things about that for both of you is that russia was soaked with sir that the united states given so much influence and

account will that they refuse to sign on and actually abstained from the vote over than eight to 94 amendmen they discriminated in favor of the united states. >> mr. chairman, could i make a comment? >> yes, sir. >> sa law school dropout of gladness and asked to comment. i do question about the 1994 amendment. they've been mentioned repeatedly. i don't have any idea what they're standing is. given the fact that a number of countries have not signed on, which just came out. second, one of the big issues for president reagan was technology transfer. and that was addressed in the amendments. and as i recall, he went from mandatory technology transfer to a recommendation that technology transfer occur from developed countries to the developing country. i forget the precise language, but something like that. it seems to me it is entirely possible and it would be happy to hear experts on the subject,

that in applying for lace is, the decisions with respect to licenses could be dependent on the degree of accommodation company is going to make with respect to technology. we say reagan's company was concerned to be fixed they were dressed in some instances fixed and in some instances repented. >> i would let the experts speak to that, people there during that time. that's important. >> i would take a stab at that. issues are addressed at length and professor ausman's article. the tax transfer were dropped in the limitations were dropped. the barriers to access the deep seabed mining were trapped in the idea that the authority could actually decide who could get mining rights, who couldn't,

which is really one of our concerns who would have this group of countries that would look at u.s. 90-pound needs to say we don't really like he was also dropped. and one coming u.s. companies were actually grandfathered in so that they would not have to make some of the same showings that other companies around the world that have to show. that was one of the reasons for the soviet protest. >> another reason why lockheed has little objection to the treaty. >> and in addition, they would not be an evaluation of the type equal qualifications of applicants. it would be based on a first-come first serve basis as long as people met basic financial qualifications. >> mr. chairman. >> yes, sir. >> on the contrary, it is extraordinary -- if i could just take 30 seconds to add sosa in the record.

i really wanted to be in the record in this part. page 279, section nine, subsectiona status, decisions of the finance committee on questions and procedures taken by majority members of voting decisions on questions of substance shall be taken a consensus. so both -- i can't think of an agreement. i can't think of an international treaty which the united states of america has the only permanent seat and the ability to block anything and protect their interests. and if we don't like it can get out of it. so i think it is important to have that in its proper context. >> i'll just take one minute. this is a very critical question, which is why i asked it. and i appreciate my uva law student doing such a good job because everybody engaged. but everybody has to remember

they are communicating with the university of georgia last anathematized to me and i would like to ask mr. groves in mr. trant free to try an gives me a one pager that addresses this issue of consensus and veto of majority members present to override. if you could do that and the 94 amendments that may have taken place. one other question i don't respond to this because i'm going to drag it out, but others reading paragraph 4 as you regain a peer-to-peer graphite is still in the spoken any to know if the 94 treaty extractive paragraph 5, which refers to the majority of those voting, present voting and the two thirds majority. we will get in that debate now, but i apologize. >> i think it is a terrific request, senator. it's very important and we will look for the full explanation. i think would be very helpful to the committee indeed. >> to the extent it can be

distilled to one page we will do our best. >> thank you. senator leahy, thanks for your patience. thank you, mr. chairman. thanks for all of you for your service to our country. mr. bellinger, i wanted to start by asking the basic fundamental question about something in this treaty does. like reading a royalty obligation is to the exploitation of minerals from the seabed outside of the 200 knock on my own range, are we creating a construct that recognizes ownership released a degree of sovereignty and an international organization? is out there as he implies? somebody can charge a royalty for the explication of minerals, does not imply the own that land

where the state possess the software -- the incidence of sovereignty with respect to the up and? >> i wouldn't say so. i just see that associate the united states has agreed to two minor area. >> so if you all bland and exxonmobil wants to develop oil in the land and i say i'm going to church or royalty are exploiting the research -- this resource on mr. bellinger is land, when i employ some sort of ownership for sovereign right with respect to that land? >> while again, not necessarily. it was sent the degree to in the treaty without a broad philosophical construct of the significance of what it meant for a royalty provision. as you know because i know you have a long legal pedigree that is property rights and bundles of sticks can be complicated as far as what is actually a property right and it can be used in different contexts and

games and same with respect to treaties pearse is simply that we agree to pay something here does not mean we are conceding that the international community owns the extended continental shelf. >> we are creating a financial interest in one sort or another that could be a property interest. >> i appreciate your acknowledgment was senator pushes article on 222 with an ambiguity they are asked to the meaning of applicable. if there is ambiguity there, wouldn't that suggest that an international arbitration panel will convene pursuant to annex eight under the treaty could also conclude there is ambiguity there and decide the issue one way or the other? >> i guess i assam, senator, i would think that. i think it is a good question for someone reading that provision, but i can tell you as someone who has spent a lot of time reading treaties,

particularly one -- honestly, this is my job for four years as legal advisor to defend against other countries who claim certain things were applicable to the united states. and applicable means that we are legally bound by it. >> so pedantic interpretation balance, read were well-trained, doing it right in the way related to be done from your position is raise the right conclusion. >> i certainly think it is clear that applicable international obligation means something that we are legally sound bite. >> okay, thank you. >> secretary rumsfeld, i recently had a retired navy commander in the office. he made the following statement regarding this treaty and said we should not in any way restrict the ability of the united tcb to serve as primary purpose protect in the united states of america against all enemies foreign and